Are we, as some might say, motivated by a desire to save our off-spring?
A big question us deep-thinking smart people ask is the blatantly cliched "what is life?" If you take out all the psychology and emotion from human existence, then all you are left with is the desire to continue our gene line, that is, life is producing children that carry our genetic material. It is as if the Gods have one day sat around the table bored of playing cards and suddenly one of the Gods had an idea to make humans and animals and bet the other Gods on how long the living beings would last before they would all die out. After billions of years of evolution, we're still holding strong, and yet some would consider the human race as the most "intelligent," I would say that we are just slightly more modified. In fact, we're not so much different from animals ourselves. We all have similar motivations: staying alive long enough to mate, and after that, mate some more. Even today, most males first consider themselves "men" after having their first sexual experience, or even intercourse.
Let's face it. We can live without mating, but it wouldn't feel as good as having millions of successors (with the probable exception of the clergy, but we all know too well of their "activities"). Sex motivates us, and it would be a good guess to say that saving our offspring motivates us as well. In animals, there are two ways to ensure success in the gene line: protect and pamper the offspring to ensure a healthy life, or produce a myriad number of children in the hopes that at least a few of them will survive to reach adulthood. Unsurprisingly, the majority of organisms or the latter are considered "unintelligent." Fish and frogs are just a few of those animals that could care less about their offspring. The first method, however, are made up of organisms that are a bit more intelligent, or at least less in number. Dolphins, dogs, orangutans, elephants, and even humans all take care of their young to the point where they can fend for themselves.
So are we motivated to save our offspring? It makes sense to, since they are technically our gene line at work, and without them then the gene line would cease to exist, which is bad. A mother would never sacrifice her child for her own life without hesitation (however some will anyway), but it would considerably be an easier choice to sacrifice one child to save seven others (since the gene line would still be there). It might seem cynical to think this way, but in all honesty this is how the world works. Once you see life in the eye, it's just as what psychology suggests: a bunch of chemicals acting together.
Must there always be some sort of intrinsic reward for doing good?
No matter how you look at it, there were ALWAYS be a reward for doing good. Life works in a way of "equal trade:" The more you give in, the more you receive. Even doing something as kind as orphanage volunteering would be rewarding. How you might ask? First of all, most people in KIS volunteer for a reason. Most of us are doing it for college, and you can occasionally find the oddball that has some tragic incident in an orphanage and works in one. The latter might seem innocent enough, however he or she is most likely volunteering to relieve him/herself from that tragic incident and bring closure. This idea seems cynical, but it makes sense. No one would do anything without a reward.
Mr. Otis once said, "That having integrity is doing the right thing when no one is watching." If this is so, and no one knows when we have done good, would you still do good?
Absolutely not. If no one was watching I would most likely do neutral things that I would do any other time, since I'd be cautious that someone WOULD be looking. If I was absolutely sure no one was watching, I'd honestly do something out of the norm, just for the hell of it. I'm sure Mr. Otis would, deep down, agree with me.
However doing something good without anyone looking could give you a "warm fuzzy feeling" that could go away really quickly. It's really not worth it. I could be considered cynical, but honestly, guys. Cmon.
"Delayed reciprocal altruism", seems like a gamble - back to game theory, any way. Does this seem to make sense to you. That is that we act out of a desire to have what we have done being done to us?
I may be a die hard cynic, but delayed reciprocal altruism does seem to be a stretch above the notion at first thought. Since the dawn of man, we lived in packs to ensure safety in numbers. Live together, die alone they said. The complexities of living together brought men to make rules and morals that, once broken, would mean consequences. However, delayed reciprocal altruism can be countered by a few examples. If two young men have a physical fight in the school cafeteria, there are some unwritten "rules" that they would not break, such as poking out an eye with a fork or pulling off an arm (which is quite easy to do). Chimpanzees can easily do this to us, but normal human beings would never consider pulling out an arm with their bare hands. Why is this? We are all of the same race, and thus have a certain respect for each other. Which would be easier to smash with your palm, a fly or Jonathan?
On the other hand, delayed reciprocal altruism makes totally sense in regards to friendships. A wise man once said "you scratch my back and I scratch yours." Notice that YOU have to scratch MY back first. Doing a deed for someone will gain their trust and they will back you up in the darkest of times. So ina sense, delayed reciprocal altruism isn't all Greek.
Are we ever being truly "selfless" when committing an act of altruism?
No we are not. Altruism is just an illusion of the mind that tells itself that we are doing good things, but in fact we're doing these things for ourselves.
A big question us deep-thinking smart people ask is the blatantly cliched "what is life?" If you take out all the psychology and emotion from human existence, then all you are left with is the desire to continue our gene line, that is, life is producing children that carry our genetic material. It is as if the Gods have one day sat around the table bored of playing cards and suddenly one of the Gods had an idea to make humans and animals and bet the other Gods on how long the living beings would last before they would all die out. After billions of years of evolution, we're still holding strong, and yet some would consider the human race as the most "intelligent," I would say that we are just slightly more modified. In fact, we're not so much different from animals ourselves. We all have similar motivations: staying alive long enough to mate, and after that, mate some more. Even today, most males first consider themselves "men" after having their first sexual experience, or even intercourse.
Let's face it. We can live without mating, but it wouldn't feel as good as having millions of successors (with the probable exception of the clergy, but we all know too well of their "activities"). Sex motivates us, and it would be a good guess to say that saving our offspring motivates us as well. In animals, there are two ways to ensure success in the gene line: protect and pamper the offspring to ensure a healthy life, or produce a myriad number of children in the hopes that at least a few of them will survive to reach adulthood. Unsurprisingly, the majority of organisms or the latter are considered "unintelligent." Fish and frogs are just a few of those animals that could care less about their offspring. The first method, however, are made up of organisms that are a bit more intelligent, or at least less in number. Dolphins, dogs, orangutans, elephants, and even humans all take care of their young to the point where they can fend for themselves.
So are we motivated to save our offspring? It makes sense to, since they are technically our gene line at work, and without them then the gene line would cease to exist, which is bad. A mother would never sacrifice her child for her own life without hesitation (however some will anyway), but it would considerably be an easier choice to sacrifice one child to save seven others (since the gene line would still be there). It might seem cynical to think this way, but in all honesty this is how the world works. Once you see life in the eye, it's just as what psychology suggests: a bunch of chemicals acting together.
No matter how you look at it, there were ALWAYS be a reward for doing good. Life works in a way of "equal trade:" The more you give in, the more you receive. Even doing something as kind as orphanage volunteering would be rewarding. How you might ask? First of all, most people in KIS volunteer for a reason. Most of us are doing it for college, and you can occasionally find the oddball that has some tragic incident in an orphanage and works in one. The latter might seem innocent enough, however he or she is most likely volunteering to relieve him/herself from that tragic incident and bring closure. This idea seems cynical, but it makes sense. No one would do anything without a reward.
Absolutely not. If no one was watching I would most likely do neutral things that I would do any other time, since I'd be cautious that someone WOULD be looking. If I was absolutely sure no one was watching, I'd honestly do something out of the norm, just for the hell of it. I'm sure Mr. Otis would, deep down, agree with me.
However doing something good without anyone looking could give you a "warm fuzzy feeling" that could go away really quickly. It's really not worth it. I could be considered cynical, but honestly, guys. Cmon.
I may be a die hard cynic, but delayed reciprocal altruism does seem to be a stretch above the notion at first thought. Since the dawn of man, we lived in packs to ensure safety in numbers. Live together, die alone they said. The complexities of living together brought men to make rules and morals that, once broken, would mean consequences. However, delayed reciprocal altruism can be countered by a few examples. If two young men have a physical fight in the school cafeteria, there are some unwritten "rules" that they would not break, such as poking out an eye with a fork or pulling off an arm (which is quite easy to do). Chimpanzees can easily do this to us, but normal human beings would never consider pulling out an arm with their bare hands. Why is this? We are all of the same race, and thus have a certain respect for each other. Which would be easier to smash with your palm, a fly or Jonathan?
On the other hand, delayed reciprocal altruism makes totally sense in regards to friendships. A wise man once said "you scratch my back and I scratch yours." Notice that YOU have to scratch MY back first. Doing a deed for someone will gain their trust and they will back you up in the darkest of times. So ina sense, delayed reciprocal altruism isn't all Greek.
No we are not. Altruism is just an illusion of the mind that tells itself that we are doing good things, but in fact we're doing these things for ourselves.